Avandamet:Combined metformin-rosiglitazone treatment for insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes

Insulin resistance is a major endocrinopathy underlying the development of hyperglycaemia and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Metformin (a biguanide) and rosiglitazone (a thiazolidinedione) counter insulin resistance, acting by different cellular mechanisms. The two agents can be used in combination to achieve additive glucose-lowering efficacy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, without stimulating insulin secretion and without causing hypoglycaemia. Both agents also reduce a range of atherothrombotic factors and markers, indicating a lower cardiovascular risk. Early intervention with metformin is already known to reduce myocardial infarction and increase survival in overweight type 2 patients. Recently, a single-tablet combination of metformin and rosiglitazone, Avandamet, has become available. Avandamet is suitable for type 2-diabetic patients who are inadequately controlled by monotherapy with metformin or rosiglitazone. Patients already receiving separate tablets of metformin and rosiglitazone may switch to the single-tablet combination for convenience. Also, early introduction of the combination before maximal titration of one agent can reduce side effects. Use of Avandamet requires attention to the precautions for both metformin and rosiglitazone, especially renal, cardiac and hepatic competence. In summary, Avandamet is a single-tablet metformin-rosiglitazone combination that doubly targets insulin resistance as therapy for hyperglycaemia and vascular risk in type 2 diabetes. © 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Majority versus minority influence:the role of message processing in determining resistance to counter-persuasion

Two experiments examined the extent to which attitudes changed following majority and minority influence are resistant to counter-persuasion. In both experiments participants' attitudes were measured after being exposed to two messages, delayed in time, which argued opposite positions (initial message and counter-message). In the first experiment, attitudes following minority endorsement of the initial message were more resistant to a second counter-message only when the initial message contained strong versus weak arguments. Attitudes changed following majority influence did not resist the second counter-message and returned to their pre-test level. Experiment 2 varied whether memory was warned (i.e., message recipients expected to recall the message) or not, to manipulate message processing. When memory was warned, which should increase message processing, attitudes changed following both majority and minority influence resisted the second counter-message. The results support the view that minority influence instigates systematic processing of its arguments, leading to attitudes that resist counter-persuasion. Attitudes formed following majority influence yield to counter-persuasion unless there is a secondary task that encourages message processing.

Resistance to persuasive messages as a function of majority and minority source status

Three experiments examined the extent to which attitudes following majority and minority influence are resistant to counter-persuasion. In Experiment 1, participants’ attitudes were measured after being exposed to two messages which argued opposite positions (initial pro-attitudinal message and subsequent, counter-attitudinal counter-message). Attitudes following minority endorsement of the initial message were more resistant to a (second) counter-message than attitudes following majority endorsement of the initial message. Experiment 2 replicated this finding when the message direction was reversed (counter-attitudinal initial message and pro-attitudinal counter-message) and showed that the level of message elaboration mediated the amount of attitude resistance. Experiment 3 included conditions where participants received only the counter-message and showed that minority-source participants had resisted the second message (counter-message) rather than being influenced by it. These results show that minority influence induces systematic processing of its arguments which leads to attitudes which are resistant to counter-persuasion.

Strategists' reactions and resistance towards forces of inclusion:soothing the anxiety of marketing (non-) influence

The firm is becoming more and more inclusive in its conception. And yet, marketing studies point to the same overwhelming conclusion that marketing, marketing departments and marketers are being increasingly 'pushed out' - excluded. We argue that where and when inclusion-exclusion intersect in the practice of strategic marketing is important, not least because their powerful boundary-setting and spanning roles have a determinant effect on the places and spaces, within which marketing strategists are (counter-) mobilized. This paper provides new insights relating to the contradictory forces existing around inclusion-exclusion in corporate strategizing. A further aim is to present the position of marketing (non-) influence within this context. The paper provides a unique theoretical contribution by illustrating some of the contradictions, struggles and activities that make the theoretical shift towards strategic inclusivity unstable, partial and by no means inevitable. A further contribution is a linking of this broader strategic debate, with anxieties over the influence of marketing in corporate strategizing. This leads to a discussion of the various ways that marketing research can sooth the anxiety of influence on multiple fronts via: understanding agency and strategic action; shaping marketing curriculum development; and, reconsidering the spatial dimensions of marketing influence. © 2010 Taylor & Francis.